Friday, May 26, 2017

Tea with the Dark Wizard

Coffee, really.
Last weekend taught a full two-day seminar dissecting principles and application at Randy King's KPC Self Defense in Edmonton. Taking each of my eleven principles*, digging into it as much as time would allow, then playing and experimenting. It does no good to have something you intend to use in chaos just as a mental picture. You have to play with anything to understand it. You have to play with it to make it a part of you.

It was the first time organizing the information this way and teaching it all at once. It was some pretty deep water. The feedback was solid. Randy said it best, albeit in nerd speech: "I think I just leveled up as an instructor. This will help me steal the magic better."

Aside-- Stealing the magic. Ever run into an instructor who could do things you simply couldn't? Not talking the bullshit magic stuff like chi balls. Setting so he couldn't be lifted (structure) or push you across the room with almost imperceptible movement (structure + line and circle + balance). It's just good physics, but often the really good instructors can't explain what they are doing so they have real trouble teaching it. Understand the principles and you know what to look for. You can learn the good stuff they can't articulate well enough to teach. The stuff that looks like magic.

One of the attendees was Rick Wilson. Rick is the 60+ year old guy that the jocks are a little worried about playing sumo with. The guy who has studied traditional stuff and rejected traditional stuff and come full circle to find the body mechanics behind the traditional stuff. Smart. Really deep base of knowledge.

At some point, I think it was after InFighting last year, Dillon started calling Rick the Dark Wizard. His body mechanics are that good. And this is coming from Dillon...

Anyway, Randy and I had coffee and burgers with Rick. Good talks. About teaching, communication and writing. Trying to find decent answers to shitty and deadly situations. And in the details got yet another system of power generation to work on. Multi-directional joint expansion. I just started playing with joint expansion at all but here's yet another can of worms. Also Rick's "clamp" which is definitely going to improve my explanation of bone slaving (which is one piece of structure.)

Good times.


*Everyone should have their own list. Mine happens to have eleven. There are many good ways to organize information

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Boundary Setting

I've described boundary setting in both ConCom and Scaling Force, but I was recently informed that I haven't written it down quite the way I teach it. So here goes.

Setting a boundary is not a negotiation or a conversation. It is a very different communication mode than most people ever use. This is why most people find it so hard, and why most people can safely ignore your boundaries. It is not enough to know the pattern, you have to practice. And the real practice is not in learning the pattern, it is in sticking to the pattern.

The pattern is simple:

  1. State boundary
  2. Repeat boundary (Louder)
  3. State penalty
  4. Apply penalty

That's it.
"Back off!" "I said back off!" "One step closer and I will knock you on your ass!" Knock on ass.

"Go to bed." "I said, go to bed!" "If you do not go to bed right now, you will get a spanking and I will put you in bed." Spank and carry.

The example in Scaling Force:
“I’ve told you to leave the door open when you come into my office.”
“What’s your problem? Are you afraid to be alone with me?” Trying to joke, trying to make the boundary setter defensive. Do you see the predator dynamic here?
“Open the door.” Simple, direct statement. No argument, no reasoning, nothing in the voice that could turn it into a question. One of the worst phrases is “I need you to do X for me” as it places all the power on the threat and sounds like a plea on two levels, “need” and “for me.” Do not use this tactic when dealing with potential predators. It’ll backfire.
“Whatever. I wanted to talk to you about…” Disregarding “no” or pretending to ignore boundaries is a huge red flag that you are dealing with a predator.
“Open the door.” Staying on message.
“Geeze, can’t you stay on the subject?” Again, trying to shift blame/responsibility, implying that the predator is the one who wants to get the job done and the potential victim is hung up on something minor.

“Open the door or I will file that complaint. Now!” The only thing added to the statement of boundaries is the penalty. “Now” acts as an ultimatum. Once you take this verbal step you must be ready to act on your threat. If the threat ignores you (some will, most won’t) and you fail to follow through, you will have marked yourself as easy meat.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I normally avoid the words always and never, but this one comes close. Deviation from this pattern turns the boundary setting into something that is not boundary setting. If you need to set a boundary, doing something else rarely works.

It's hard to stick with the pattern because we aren't used to it. If you explain the reasons behind your boundary, it's now a conversation, not boundary setting. The conversation may work, but what comes out is an agreement, not a boundary. Agreements require the consent of all involved parties. You set your boundaries around the things that are more important than other people's consent.
Exception: You can make the reason (provided it is simple, not too personal, and doesn't invite follow up questions) the introduction to step 1, e.g. "You're too close. Back off." NOT "Back off, you're standing too close." NOT "I had a really bad childhood and when people with beards get within arms reach of me I sometimes have panic attacks so back off." You get the idea.

If you just keep repeating the boundary, it's a broken record and meaningless. No one respects it. Empty noise.

If you state the penalty but can't bring yourself to apply the penalty, it's just posturing, an empty threat. Not only does this erase the boundary, the person now knows you to be just an empty threat. All of your boundaries disappear.

If you skip the two middle steps, you aren't setting a boundary. The first statement was a warning. It's a different thing.

You can pretty accurately gauge the level of predation that you're dealing with by how they challenge the boundary.

"Back off." Most normal- and normal in this context means someone with no ill will towards you and no language barrier or mental issue that prevents them from grasping that this is a declarative statement-- will back off. They might be bewildered or upset, and will probably ask for an explanation, but they will respect the boundary. You can explain a respected boundary if you choose to, just be aware that damn near everyone assumes that knowing the reasons gives them the right to break the rule.

Socially awkward/language barrier/mental illness/drugs may just blow by step one, but step two stops them.

Predators however have three common responses to step 1, "Back off" One is to open their body language, soften their voice and gently violate the boundary while asking you a question, "Honey, why do you want to be like that? You aren't afraid of me, are you?" The second is to turn it back on you, try to trigger a common social guilt that makes you feel bad for setting your own boundaries, such as, "What, you got a problem with (ethnicity, gender, religion, any of the hot-button labels.)" Or, "You think you're so special you can tell me what to do?" The third is to trigger a monkey dance by demanding the third step, "Oh, yeah? What are you gonna do about it?"

Step two tends to stop the low level predators as well. All of the common predatory responses to the first step are trying to divert you into a predictable social script. If you fall for them, it shows you can be manipulated and more important, those scripts are predictable. Ignoring the hook and going for the second step means you are hard to control and unpredictable. Most predators will give it a pass.

Real world notice #1: Sometimes, you'll be setting boundaries say, at work, where there is a long term relationship. This guy might be a creep and you need to set boundaries, but you also have to work with him, maybe for years. Some of them will flirt with the edge of the boundary and try to turn it into a game to see if and when you will cave.

Some predators will push to step three, mostly to see if you have a step three or just go into broken record mode. Once you have stated the penalty, you have revealed that you do in fact have a plan to deliver consequences. Even the more serious predators back off here unless they are sure they can get away with it. And are willing to cross those lines. If the rapist knows he has to kill to keep you from reporting, he has to make a choice.

Real world notice #2. A lot of self-defense is taught as if the incident will happen in a sterile laboratory environment. The sexually aggressive creep at the office didn't back off until step three. That's pretty predatory. But he did back off, so win! Yay! But never forget that assholes are very good at punishing people for standing up to them, and this is a long game. The creep will tell everyone willing to listen how unreasonable you are and how petty and how you were going to write him up just for standing there... It's a long game, but you can play a long game, too.



Sunday, May 14, 2017

Attempted Brain Dredge

Sometimes I hate not thinking in words. Usually it's a superpower. But right now I'm struggling to explain something that I see as...gestalt is the best word I can come up with. Stayed up all last night trying to find the words. Sometimes words would bubble up and I can explain a piece of it, but sometimes the words open another tangent that's relevant.

Roughly, meaning is important. Syntax is the effective ordering of symbols to deliver meaning. Grammar is an attempt to codify syntax to make it both easier to deliver meaning and easier to detect sloppy syntax. Until grammar becomes it's own thing.

Roughly, fighting is to have an effect to serve the goal. The principles (leverage, structure, etc.) and building blocks (power generation, strikes, takedowns etc.) are the means to achieve that goal. "Form" is an attempt to codify the principles and building blocks. Both to make fighting easier to teach and to make it more efficient. And it works, until form becomes it's own thing separate from effect.

Good grammar is never wrong, exactly. And it's never wrong to punch with good form. This is (sort of) axiomatic because because good form is supposed to be what a punch with perfect body mechanics looks like.

This is where I hit the wall. It's an image, partially visual, mostly kinesthetic in my head, but the words that surface are a mess:

Communication can happen with absolutely no proper grammar or syntax-- Think comforting an infant. And fighters can be devastating even with no recognizable form and shitty body mechanics. A 2x4 upside the head doesn't need a lot of skill. But that in no way means you should eschew skill. A 2x4 plus good body mechanics is better than a 2x4 with shitty body mechanics.

It doesn't hurt to comfort an infant using grammatically correct phrases, unless your focus on being grammatically correct makes your language stilted and unnatural. Then the kid will get weirded out. It doesn't hurt to fight with good form, because good form is just good body mechanics. Unless you are so focused on doing things "right" that your movements become stilted and unnatural and you get your ass kicked.

A focus on form, whether in grammar or fighting, can cover up a lot of ignorance. If I can't refute your arguments, I can make fun of your spelling. If I don't have any real understanding of how the human body works, I can focus on form the way I memorized it-- knowledge memorized substituting for understanding. With understanding, I can teach you to hit harder, with knowledge I can teach you to look like my sensei did when he was hitting hard.

When form/grammar become it's own thing. This is looking like a universal. Grammatically correct nonsense is still nonsense. Punching air while looking right is still punching air. We create these systems to make things better, to make a specific goal easier to accomplish. Whether that goal is conveying information or knocking someone down. But in almost every case, certain people are drawn to become masters and keepers of the system, and to them, the system becomes the goal itself. Has there ever been a piece of great literature that was grammatically perfect? I'm sure Shakespeare had someone correcting his grammar. In fighting and SD, these are the couch sitters that will tell you you survived wrong.  Universal-- I'm thinking of ways that bureaucracies originally designed to solve problems become self-perpetuating machines, sometimes at great cost. Cough*Rotherham*Cough.

And that's even assuming the form is based on what we think it is. Kicking with the instep is less likely to injure your target and more likely to injure you than kicking with your shin... but it makes a slapping noise that is much harder for a referee to ignore. "Ain't" was a forbidden word in my grade school. Not because it was unclear, but because our teachers wanted us to sound like s specific socio-economic class.


Thursday, April 20, 2017

Like A Scientist

I've been struggling, for years now, with not being in sworn service. It shows up here on the blog, but it's more evident in the times I can't or won't or don't write. In private conversations. Or staring out over the horizon.

Teaching is fun, and (on paper) life is amazing. Four countries this year already and a new one day after tomorrow. Of the classic travel lines (Arctic and Antarctic Circles, Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, Equator and International date line) I've crossed all but one in the last six months. Amazing home, ardent love. Life is amazing. But for the last few years it has felt muted. Dull. Adrenaline makes life feel more real, and none of this ever has or ever will feel as real as going head to head with a bad guy or heading off a riot.

K and I are experimenting with new things this year. Simple things mostly. Have had most of a week to talk to Toby and spent the night before last in a sleeping bag without a tent north of the arctic circle. I feel transition coming on. A good one.

We all age and change. And, can't speak for everyone, but I suspect it's common-- there's a tendency to focus on an image of the past. Sometimes it works out. I trained so hard in martial arts because long after it was true, every time I looked in the mirror I saw the tiny, scrawny kid, the smallest kid in the redneck school. But most of the time, it's almost like we focus on whatever will make us feel worse. Or maybe it's just me.

Bragging alert: At my peak, I got the physical fitness awards from both Army BCT and the Academy. I could do over 110 pushups in 2 minutes, did a 10:50 2-mile, hand-over-hand a 10.5 mm climbing rope. At 5'8" I could jump and grab a basketball hoop and once kicked the net. That whole time, I thought I was weak and small.

And whining alert: Now over 50 years old. Lots of injuries over the last fifteen-- knee, elbow and shoulder dislocations. Long term effects of concussions. Some arthritis from broken fingers. Bones out of place in feet and ankles. Spine acting up making the hands spasm and go numb...

I've been looking at the past as a lost thing. News alert, the past is always a lost thing. Can 55-year-old Rory ever be 25-year-old Rory? Of course not. Trying to get back to a past physicality is just as toxic as a violence survivor who thinks that who they were before the incident was the "real" them and measures their progress by how far they retrogress to that "real." It's bullshit. It's a bullshit way to think. It's.Not.Useful.

 Can 55-year-old Rory ever be 25-year-old Rory? Nope. But, you know what? Nobody has any clue what 55-year-old Rory can be. No one knows what the limits are. It's never happened before. This is something to explore, not to plan. I've done the fighter thing. And the teacher thing (Don't worry, I'll continue that for a bit). The next transition will be to scientist, experimenter and explorer. What's possible? What's fun? Already feel my inner world shifting. This is going to be an interesting ride.

Monday, March 27, 2017

Scales and Interactions

Anything in the human world is a complex interaction. I have a history, a set of assumptions, a suite of facts and things I want to believe are facts, communication habits and patterns, etc. And so do you. Somewhere in the interplay between our complexities, we communicate. To a degree.

And almost everything is on a scale. Clarity of communication can be non-existent or poor or good or very close to perfect. And the clarity can be impaired at either end (I can write poorly or you can read inaccurately) or in the middle (radio static.) And clarity can be deliberately manipulated. I can choose to lie or be obscure, consciously or not. You can choose to hear something other than what I said, consciously or unconsciously.

At some point, and it's probably on a scale, choosing (manipulating) your own perception becomes the superpower of reframing.

All of this means there are some very important things that will never have a clear answer. Where is the line between education and brainwashing? Deep training changes the student at a fundamental level, and with changes that big, informed consent is impossible. There's an arrogant answer that as long as you teach "the truth" it doesn't matter, but all educational systems have believed that their mythology was objective truth. Do you really think you've evaded a trap that has caught everyone else?

Where is the line between toughening up and abuse? I feel very privileged to have had my childhood. I like who I am, and my childhood gave me the tools to function and stay sane in some relatively nasty conditions. My wife thinks my childhood was "horrific."

If you embrace the power of reframing, the recipient can literally decide if an event was good or bad, can choose the effect the event has on his or her (or my own) life. Except, what about the cult member who is perfectly happy in a life of isolation, deprivation and control? Why is it okay for me to reframe my childhood as a positive thing, but not for another adult to reframe his experience as 'joy in service?' When does reframing shift from empowerment to dodging? Where is the line between assistance and enabling?

At what point does my cheerleading ("I got over X, you can too!") Become disempowering ("So why haven't you got over it? What the hell is wrong with you?")

Speaking about this becomes murky, because not everything that is deliberate is also conscious. There are many people choosing to be assholes that never let that decision rise to their conscious mind where they might have to face responsibility. What's the best way to interact with someone who chooses to lose when I want the person to be successful?

To some extent, this is all mental masturbation. And a by-product of magnification. You can look at anything with too fine a lens and the problem becomes impossibly complex. Too coarse a lens and the problem is too blurry to see. There's a sweet spot.

Living as a human is an action. You'll never cover all of the angles, so you learn what you can, get as good as you can, and act. Over-analysis leads to inaction. Never pretend  that the complexities don't exist, however. That's one of the ways you get people doubling down on failed solutions.

Friday, March 17, 2017

Denying

The longest fight I have ever had lasted over an hour. At no time was I in any danger.

The thing was, we were dealing with an inmate who wanted to hurt himself. Lighten up for even an instant on pressure and he would start slamming his own head into the floor. Lose a grip on his wrist and he would try to gouge his own eyes.

In most situations-- self-defense, combatives, whatever-- you have a goal. Get to safety. Get the bad guy in cuffs. Whatever. In almost every case, the threat's goal is irrelevant to your goal. If the threat wants to play with me as a toy or see what someone looks like as they die or get enough cash for the next hit of meth or heroin or crack, that really doesn't affect my goal to get home in one piece.

Get this: most of the time your goal is NOT to deny the threat's goal. Most of the time your goal (go home safe or threat goes to jail) are antagonistic to the threat's goal purely as a side effect.

But, rarely, your goal is to deny the threat's goal. Your focus shifts from winning to denying the threat his idea of a win.

This is strategically dangerous. One of the golden rules of tactics is to never play the threat's game. But when you are trying to deny the threat his definition of the win, you've already ceded most of your strategy. There is no pro-active way to work from this paradigm. When your goal is denying the threat's goal, you have already let the threat define the goal. The threat controls the battlefield and has the advantage.

In long-term conflicts, "denying the opposition" has a more profound side-effect. Once you define yourself by your enemy, you can never win. Labor/management.  Israel/Palestine. To defeat your enemy would cause your raison d'ĂȘtre to die. And thus, you.


Note for a future post: positive versus negative, in definition and goals.

Thursday, March 16, 2017

No Bullshit (Virtue)

Saw an ad offering "No Bulls**t" self defense training. That's laudable. That's the goal. For that matter "No bullshit" should be a goal for training and talking and thinking and living. But it's not that simple. The no-bullshit life is a goal, but if you ever think for one second that you've achieved it, you've just started bullshitting yourself.

We all have biases-- biases in the way that we perceive, process, think, plan... You probably know some of your physical habits (when you cross your arms, is the right or the left on the outside? Are you left or right eye dominant? Which shoe goes on first?) but not all of them. You probably know even fewer of your mental habits. And even fewer of your perceptual habits (hint-- I bet if you examine the last several big meetings of strangers the handful of people you remember will have certain things in common.)

The bullshit never goes away. Humans know surprisingly little. We have a lot of stuff in our heads, but the things we know to a certainty is a very small subset. And many of those are useful, but incorrect. The sun doesn't actually rise in the East, the sun is stationary and the earth spins...and that's not true either, because the sun isn't stationary, nor is the galaxy.

I'm never certain how much bullshit has crept in. I can't be. If I only taught the things I'm 100% scientifically certain of, all of my knowledge could be summed up with "1+1=2 as long as you limit it to inanimate objects; and things with a higher number on the Mohs scale will scratch things with a lower number."

When I teach a technique, I can be fairly confidant because I've used it. But really? Take a throat strike. I've used it exactly once. Spectacularly successful. Would absolutely use it again in the same situation... but if I read a "scientific survey" trying to extrapolate from a sample of one I'd laugh my ass off.

"No Bullshit" isn't a state. It's a scale. And a process. And that makes it one of the virtues.

We tend to have a binary way of looking at the world. Is a thing good or bad? Hard or soft? Right or wrong? I find that immature. Most things are scales, not states. Not good or bad, but better or worse. End state thinking leaves no room for improvement. "Excellent" can be improved on, "perfect" can't.
If you did a move well, you can get better. If you did the same move right, you can't.

Calling something a virtue recognizes that if it is a scale, it can also be a process. Virtuous people are not the ones being good, they are the ones striving to be better. Every day. "No bullshit" as a virtue is a commitment to challenging your own assumptions, back-tracking your beliefs to first sources. It isn't the contentious skepticism of trying to prove people wrong to score points, but to cut away all of your personal wrongness to continuously build a stronger foundation.